> We have been conditioned to believe that private property is more important
> than human life. This permeates everything. Until that changes, people will
> think it's OK, even desirable, to shoot someone stealing a TV and thus to
> maintain order.
>
> Joanna
> I think you are both missing the point. It is not about property i.e.
> "stuff" at all. It is about the invasion of the private space that stealing
> entails. That frightens people a lot.
>
> People are not attached to stuff per se, and generally have no problems
> getting rid of it, because that gives them opportunity to get new stuff.
> They are more thrilled with getting new stuff, because this fills the void
> in their lives left by commercialism, commodification, dissolution of the
> community, etc.
>
> But at the same time people tend to be alienated alienation produces fear.
> To combat that fear they draw thick boundaries around themselves ("The
> Wall" thing) and build their private security zones in their homes and
> their cars. The invasion of that security zone by a thief is the enemy
> penetrating the last line of defense to them - it is scary and provokes
> defensive reactions. Please note that in societies with greater social
> cohesion and interaction, the fear of crime is not as big as in the US even
> though these folks are usually poorer and cannot easlity replace the stolen
> stuff. This shows that it is not about stuff but about transgression and
> fear.
>
>
> Wojtek
That explains why people are afraid of light rail bring blacks into their suburban white neighbors and stealing their TeeVee's out of their homes. It doesn't explain why they want someone shot for stealing an appliance out of what is, for all intents and purposes, an abandoned store. Many of which will be bulldozed. The issue seems to be that in spite of whatever suffering they have gone through, whatever material loss they have been subjected to, they should not take even garbage unless "someone" gives them permission. Wal-Mart has already written that merchandise off. Who cares what happens to it?
I picked TeeVee as an example because that one item is mentioned as being looted more than any other single item. There must be some unnatural attachment to TeeVee's for it to be used in such a symbolic manner.
I could understand minor resentment that someone got a free appliance when others paid for theirs but to the point of wanting them shot? The idea that looters should be shot seems motivated by some kind of vengefulness rather than fear. I don't understand the severity of the vengefulness.
John Thornton